this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
240 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican vice-presidential candidate makes baseless claim that ‘big tech rigged the election’

The Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, told a reporter on Wednesday that there were "serious problems" in the 2020 election and suggested for the first time that the then president Donald Trump did not actually lose the race.

“Did Donald Trump lose the election? Not by the words that I would use,” Vance said in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. “But look, I really couldn’t care less if you agree with me or disagree with me on this issue.”

He was pressed on his response by a reporter later in the day on another campaign stop in Wilmington, North Carolina, saying: "I think that big tech rigged the election in 2020. That's my view. And if you disagree with me, that's fine."

The response comes in the wake of a non-response earlier this month, when during an interview with the New York Times, Vance was reportedly given five opportunities to “acknowledge that Trump did not win in 2020” and he “refused to say so”.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 78 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He lied.

Saying things you know aren't true is lying.

Stop using soft language to downplay the threat the GOP represents.

[–] Donut@leminal.space 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They have to use this language to stay out of legal trouble. Saying things you know aren't true is indeed lying, but you have to prove that they know it's a lie.

Intention to deceive is the key part, and hard to prove. So journalists play it on the safe side and just keep to the facts: they repeated false claims / statements.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Not angry at you because you are accurately stating the position.

However, in this case that position is bullshit. The outcome of the election has been established. We have all seen JD Vance being made aware of that fact during interviews.

HE IS A LIAR AND IT IS LEGAL TO SAY SO.

Also, public figures have an INSANELY high bar to prove liable and defamimation.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

‘big tech rigged the election’

Isn't Vance fully in bed with Musk, Thiel, Andreessen, and a cavalcade of similarly minded fash-brained techbros?

“But look, I really couldn’t care less if you agree with me or disagree with me on this issue.”

Sipping a white russian while wearing a dirty bathrobe and insisting that election results are just, like, your opinion man.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sipping a white russian while wearing a dirty bathrobe and insisting that election results are just, like, your opinion man.

I'm sure The Dude would not abide this comparison

[–] TheDudeV2@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

This dude most certainly does not abide.

Like, most of the time I do.

Just not in this particular instance.

[–] dmention7@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

‘big tech rigged the election’

Isn’t Vance fully in bed with Musk, Thiel, Andreessen, and a cavalcade of similarly minded fash-brained techbros?

That's the G and the P in GOP. They are literally trying to rig the election with the help of a bunch of billionaire tech bros, but it's totally okay because "Democrats did it first"

And since the last election was over 1,000 news cycles ago, nobody will question whether that's actually what happened.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 5 points 2 months ago

He’s gonna say they aren’t “big tech”.

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If he didn’t lose the last election then he’s ineligible to run in this one. Take him off the ballots.

[–] TheLoneMinon@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I get the impulse to push back with this "well then he isn't eligible to run cause he's had two terms" but it just enables their argument. "The election was stolen so he never got to Serve his second term blah blah blah"

The dudes a fucking clown and a crook and has no business in the white house, but saying stuff like this just gives them ammo for their bullshit.

Edit: I know they're going to find something to bitch about regardless, but my point it let's not make it as easy as this. Let them keep grasping at straws like they have been with Walz.

Edit 2: Just realized I responded to the post and not the comment that I'm talking about. Edited to add clarity...

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 22 points 2 months ago

I think JD Vance has fucked multiple couches, if you disagree with me that's fine.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 16 points 2 months ago

Good old MAGA alternate facts in action.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Anyone surprised is a moron. He has been slow walking to this for a few weeks. tRumps camp probably leaned on him.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Anyone surprised is a moron.

Election denialism isn't about intelligence, its about propaganda. Keep repeating that any election you lose is illegitimate, and you build a groundswell of popular support for your next attempt to overthrow an election whose results you don't like.

Also, a very real possibility that Trump wins this thing and still insists the elections were rigged. With a six-seat SCOTUS that seems willing to play ball on dismantling democratic institutions, its possible for an incoming Trump regime to force out downballot Dem officials in any state that's remotely contested.

And the best part is that it'll all be "legal" from a purely textualist reading of the actions, because the folks interpreting the law are all Trump cronies.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

And the best part is that it’ll all be “legal” from a purely textualist reading of the actions, because the folks interpreting the law are all Trump cronies.

The even "bester" part is that Democrats won't even be able to vociferously complain about the Republicans real theft of the election because the Republicans have so thoroughly poisoned the well on that issue with their false claims of it. So the Democrats will fail to do what is necessary to stop the fascist takeover and America will be screwed forever.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

at this point if you're a politician siding with trump, you're either all-in on him winning, or your career in politics is finished by default anyway

trump says jump, they say how high

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No one ever asks them why all the Republicans accepted their own election results and swore in. If the election was so bad, why would you accept winning but claim a lower on the same ballot did not? You should step aside instead.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I think this is too much of a complex thought for them. They'd be lost in the first few words anyway, trying to drown you out with a mountain of shit so as not to have to listen to you.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

But big tech is run by conservative Maga bros and incels

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So he's saying that Trump is not allowed to run again, having served two terms?

/s

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I thought he didn't want to focus on the past, like he said in the debate...

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

This man has no balls

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NBC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Washington Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Washington Post:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/17/jd-vance-trump-2020-election-lost
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vance-says-trump-not-lose-2020-election-not-words-use-rcna175787
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/16/vance-2020-election-answer/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support